3 ms·

I'm not even in the anti-WFH camp, but notice you've selectively omitted the most sympathetic camp (what is this argument tactic called? Strawmanning?). People

I'm not even in the anti-WFH camp, but notice you've selectively omitted the most sympathetic camp (what is this argument tactic called? Strawmanning?). People who think teams will be more agile and innovative when they can have impromptu face-to-face conversations. I personally think that's true, but not a big enough deal to make me favor RTO. But it's not good to summarize an issue in such a way that the other side sounds like greedy bastards and yours sounds eminently reasonable.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> what is this argument tactic called? Strawmanning? Yeah, think like how you challenge yourself in deliberate practice. Putting up a "straw man" to fight doesn't really help one learn to fight.
- ska 3y ago
  Hence the idea of Steelmanning.
darreninthenet 3y ago
Hasn't it been disproven now though? My employer at the time during lockdown saw productivity and collaboration increase, and they are a mostly agile approach organisation. And there are many companies large and small with mostly or fully remote teams delivering complex projects every day as we speak. Whilst I'm sure there are edge cases where that face to face actually is essential, the idea that for teams to be agile, innovative and collaborative they must physically sit near each other has been shown to be unnecessary...?
- ska 3y ago
  > Hasn't it been disproven now though? No, it hasn't. And there isn't much serious work being done on it afaics, but lots of anectdata and politics. I think it is clear that it is possible to build productive fully remote teams, for at least some applications. It's not clear if it's optimal, or how broadly it applies in terms of applications or people.
- wharvle 3y ago
  People exist who basically can’t think in writing, on their own. They need someone actively working with them, in conversation, to put their thoughts together coherently—and, sometimes, for them to be able to understand others, as no amount of carefully and thoughtfully composed prose will get ideas into their heads without misunderstanding. IME they’re well-represented in management and other leadership. Not the majority, but there are lots of them. Some make it all the way to the top. I get why such folks might hate WFH, especially if they believe that their personal difficulties are more common than they are, so others must not be able to function as remote workers, either, and especially that people couldn’t possibly efficiently come up with and refine ideas under remote work.
bloopernova 3y ago
I've updated my comment with your suggestion. I completely forgot about the face to face is better folks, sorry about that. Edited to add: I also changed the language a little bit to be more neutral.
marcosdumay 3y ago
This groups doesn't seem to exist on any noticeable size. Otherwise, why does every place insists on destroying face-to-face interaction by adopting open-plan offices where any chat is disruptive?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

> what is this argument tactic called? Strawmanning? Yeah, think like how you challenge yourself in deliberate practice. Putting up a "straw man" to fight doesn't really help one learn to fight.

ska 3y ago
Hence the idea of Steelmanning.

darreninthenet 3y ago

Hasn't it been disproven now though? My employer at the time during lockdown saw productivity and collaboration increase, and they are a mostly agile approach organisation. And there are many companies large and small with mostly or fully remote teams delivering complex projects every day as we speak. Whilst I'm sure there are edge cases where that face to face actually is essential, the idea that for teams to be agile, innovative and collaborative they must physically sit near each other has been shown to be unnecessary...?

ska 3y ago
> Hasn't it been disproven now though? No, it hasn't. And there isn't much serious work being done on it afaics, but lots of anectdata and politics. I think it is clear that it is possible to build productive fully remote teams, for at least some applications. It's not clear if it's optimal, or how broadly it applies in terms of applications or people.
wharvle 3y ago
People exist who basically can’t think in writing, on their own. They need someone actively working with them, in conversation, to put their thoughts together coherently—and, sometimes, for them to be able to understand others, as no amount of carefully and thoughtfully composed prose will get ideas into their heads without misunderstanding. IME they’re well-represented in management and other leadership. Not the majority, but there are lots of them. Some make it all the way to the top. I get why such folks might hate WFH, especially if they believe that their personal difficulties are more common than they are, so others must not be able to function as remote workers, either, and especially that people couldn’t possibly efficiently come up with and refine ideas under remote work.

bloopernova 3y ago

I've updated my comment with your suggestion. I completely forgot about the face to face is better folks, sorry about that. Edited to add: I also changed the language a little bit to be more neutral.

marcosdumay 3y ago

This groups doesn't seem to exist on any noticeable size. Otherwise, why does every place insists on destroying face-to-face interaction by adopting open-plan offices where any chat is disruptive?